women-and-politics « WordPress.com Tag Feed

Political Mavens, Mira Hall

papertigre — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 06:27:04 +0000

Hello!

I am Megan, a brand new face to Antigone, but excited to be starting up a new column here focusing on the female political leaders. Political Mavens will be talking to the women who are hard working within government to get something done about feminist issues, among many other things.

Introducing our first change-maker: Mira Hall

Mira Hall (Yellowknife, NT – pictured RIGHT) is studying political economics and pursuing a career in policy development relating to food security and affordable housing. Mira is employed at the Centre for Northern Families where she provides a range of family support and community outreach services. Mira was once roommates with Antigone Magazine Editor Amanda Reaume when they were both delegates to the UN’s Commission on the Status of Women. This past fall, Mira ran for School Trustee in Yellowknife District 1 and won!

1. How and why did you get involved in politics?

I have always been politically active. My mother is an activist and she always encouraged me to be involved in the work that she was doing, or work that she saw others doing that she supported. I think that I was reluctant for a long time out of rebelliousness. At the end of the day I really care about community, about reducing marginalization, and I’m too passionate to stay away from politics.

2. Why do you think women should get involved in politics?

I think that women are the best qualified to represent women’s perspectives in government. For too long we have trusted that our male counterparts could represent our interests when they shape the policy that shapes our lives, but they haven’t been women so they couldn’t possibly have as deep an understanding of what our interests are as we do.

This was illustrated to me vividly during a forum during the last territorial election. Candidates were asked why they thought women weren’t participating in trades and non-traditional employment and how they as MLAs would encourage women’s economic participation in the lucrative employment opportunities provided by mining, oil and gas. The only candidate who pointed out that mothers aren’t often able to find childcare for the full two weeks that a standard camp rotation would be and that many mothers be unwilling to leave their children for two weeks out of every month was a mother of three.

3. What issue do you see as particularly important for women?

I think women’s economic independence is the number one issue for me, and that many other issues that women face are a direct result of their economic dependence. There is a persistent wage gap between men and women in Canada, and women are still structurally excluded from some types of employment.

The other issues that rank highly for me are violence against women, child apprehension, and the feminization of poverty.

4. Have you ever experienced any discrimination as a woman in politics? If so, describe your experiences and how you handled them.

Any discrimination that I notice is pretty subversive, and is rarely directed right at me in my presence. Although I notice that it seems to be women who are hardest on me and on other female candidates. I hear women calling female candidates things like “bitch,” “crazy,” “slut” and “shit-disturber,” generally when I hear the comments about male politicians and candidates the worst is “crazy” or “useless.” It makes me sad that women aren’t more supportive of each other.

It reminds me (as someone who is not affiliated to any party) of how leftists cling to the idea that Conservatives are “anti-woman” but in Canada they can claim the first female Prime Minister, and in the US they ran Sarah Palin. Leftist women are the first to say “well, they don’t really count” for whatever reason, and yet the “pro-woman” parties don’t even give us women “who don’t count.” They just keep feeding us “pro-woman” men. I’m really hoping that there is drastic change coming and that women step up and are supported by their parties and their communities.

5. What issues are you passionate about?

I suspect that all of my passions can be boiled down to “reducing marginalization.” I think that every school should be reflective of all the populations that share our community. Every school should be inclusive for girls and boys, for people with varying “ability,” for a variety of ethnicities and socio-economic backgrounds, and for fluid identities within those demographics. And not only should our schools be reflective of our multifaceted society, but our neighborhoods too, and our workplaces!

6. What is your dream for women?

My dream is to live in a world where each person can be both proud of their own culture, identity, and place in society as well as be loving and accepting of those who are different.

7. What advice do you have for young women?

Keep your chin up and know that no one can represent you or your demographic better than you! Change the world, and keep pushing!

Women in Algerian politics: some numbers

Kal — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 03:14:51 +0000

Speaking of North African women in politics, here are some tables and spreadsheets on women in Alger

The Feminist Scholar: The Performance of Feminism Issue 2

Kaitlin Blanchard — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 04:14:27 +0000

The Performance of Feminism: Maternal Leaders

*Apologies: This is a day late due to the mess of things which occurred in my life yesterday.*

In keeping with my previous discussions, I return again to Laura Roslin or rather to Mary McDonnell to begin. When asked whether the gender neutrality of her character’s (Laura Roslin) portrayal was due to her cancer, McDonnell responded, “no, it was myself and the other characters adjusting to her leadership.” She needed to take on masculine characteristics as McDonnell puts it to gain authority in order to be allowed to display any femininity. McDonnell noted had the character come to the position of leadership desiring the position she would have fought harder to change her portrayal. Suffice to say, this annoyed me. First of all, that these characteristics have to remain gendered annoys me; secondly, that the former is understood to be the necessary and perhaps natural reaction in such a situation annoys me further.

Why does political leadership have to exist in such a uni-dimensional form in the western imaginary? I cite the current federal ad campaigns in Canada which are founded on the effectiveness of bar room brawls to establish authority. There are different and better ways to lead. Leading from a place of parity, for example, premised upon the idea that we are all in this for the long run, should be less divisive. And yet, Battlestar’s fiercely machiavellian political contests would seem to indicate otherwise. Granted, McDonnell’s character was faced with a crisis and forced to compete with the hyper-masculine environment of the military and thus perhaps a hard-edge was the only note to take. But I want to emphasize that it was her very maternal instincts which saved the human race from annihilation. So, I wonder, then, if perhaps we could re-signify the maternal as a gender-neutral expression of leadership?

What might such a maternal model look like? Well, for one thing, motherhood expresses itself in many different ways, and I don’t want to enforce a particular model here: but I do want to place emphasis on the value of ‘care.’ I don’t know that history could give us any adequate precedents (feel free to add some, my sense of history is sadly inadequate), but my first instinct would be that it would necessarily be a mix of top-down and bottom-up collaboration between leaders and their parties. I think where this model might usefully be expressed would be in democratic institutions themselves. If, for example, North-American democracy were to ever adopt a proportional representation system, what could happen would include the formation of cross-party committees working to legislate on an issue-by-issue basis. This would allow different party members to come to the fore at different points depending on the interests of their constituents and their expertise. Where the leader of the party might fit in such a situation would be to delegate tasks and provide resources and support from the governing party. Of course, this is all purely hypothetical and extremely idealistic. But I like to think that re-signifying the maternal as a valid means of participating in a democracy rather than a time for leave or absence characterized by unchecked passion is possible. I do not mean to return woman or move men into the position of caretaker regardless of their particular talents, I simply think that infusing models of leadership with the sense of fostering growth which we might attribute to mothering might not be such a bad idea.

A teacher of mine said to her students the other day that if something were to happen to them during the year to let her know, “because, you know I get kind of attached as the year goes on.” Her concern as a human for the well-being of her students regardless of her authority in the classroom is I think something we can all learn from. At the risk of sounding like the environmentalist that I am, respecting life before politics, as Roslin does in a crisis, should be a move toward consensus building. I think perhaps feminist practice and feminisms could take a cue here. One of the t-shirts we sell on our website says “feminist” on the one side and “humanist” on the other. While, I don’t want to move feminism into the space of humanism here, I do want to emphasize that feminisms are no longer about “women.” They are about the critique of gendered practices, discrimination, and the valuation of life. Feminism is about protecting the lives of humans as equals. Any good parent knows that favoritism breeds discontent and jealousy. Any good feminist worth his or her salt knows that working toward equality discriminates against no one.

The Feminist Scholar: The Performance of Feminism Issue 1

Kaitlin Blanchard — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 07:39:22 +0000

Surfacing the Female Leader: The Performance of Laura Roslin

I wasn’t going to blog on this until I had engaged the brilliant Mary McDonnell in her question and answer session at the Toronto sci-fi convention; however, she (sadly) had to leave to attend a memorial for one of the show’s producers–my condolences.

I’m in the process of organizing a paper on her character “Laura Roslin” and “her” relation to Western culture’s interpretations of female power. In my rush to develop my grant proposals on the position of the audience in post-restoration theatres and the intersections between theatre and activism, I have, sadly, put Laura to the side. However, meeting McDonnell and engaging in some interesting conversations with fellow fans has rekindled my urgency to discuss the character and her reflections of the tradition of the female leader’s body. Indeed, I’m reaching all the way back the mystics of the medieval era in order to examine how women in power become text; that is to say, how their bodies become the surface for ‘other’ discourses. One of the things which I find perhaps the most fascinating about “Laura” is the simultaneous omnipresence and absence of her body in the performance of leadership. Laura’s illness makes her body undeniably present insofar as it ‘escapes’ her attempts to diminish its presence through her countenance etc… , while at the same time, her illness renders the question of the gendered body perhaps a moot one. In a sense, her suffering both reveals and conceals the female body. I continue with perhaps too much philosophy below, but bear with me.

The suffering body, as Elaine Scarry has argued in her book The Body in Pain, cannot be represented in and of itself. That is, it requires ‘others’ to speak for it. Pain, for Scarry, is both universal and un-shareable. (Teresa Brennan has argued elsewhere that pain is perhaps the moment when the boundaries of the human dissolve most completely–an interesting point, which I will come to later.) But I digress, for Scarry, physical suffering is the paradox of simple presence: “…pain comes unsharably into our midst as at once that which cannot be denied and that which cannot be confirmed [by its sufferer]” (4). Pain, then, requires others in order to represent itself. Pain expresses itself through ventriloquism, an imitation which presupposes a split in presence (between the speaking mediator/performer and the suffering, inarticulate body).

The suffering body is a limit of mimesis (as a principle of absolute identity), but not necessarily the limit of catharsis (as a principle of partial identity). In displaying the suffering body in the performance of leadership, “Laura” engages with the subjunctive “as if” (Scarry 22) of pain as a relation of metonymy. That is, to ‘invent’ the suffering body is to represent it metonymically, through relations of partial substitution. “Laura” then comes to take on a series of discourses in order to perform pain. For viewers of the show, I suspect this prohibits reflection on the female body as a ‘absolute’ presence in leadership.

McDonnell makes a brilliant point in another interview discussing how her glasses symbolize yet another performance within Laura’s role. For McDonnell, the glasses act as a kind of mediating barrier between the femininity inherent in Laura’s leadership and her need to play the Machiavellian leader. She observes that glasses seem to act as an interpreter between the middle-aged woman’s countenance (in the political realm at least) and the world; almost as if we as a culture are not yet ready to view that which is the fact behind why so many female politicians have to adopt what might be considered very unforgiving demeanours: their very bodies. While she interprets this mediation as a result of the fact that women display their experience on their bodies, that they take-in the world differently from men, I would suggest that perhaps it simply that we as a culture are not ready to recognize female experience in this fashion. Indeed, if male politicians adopt what are understood to be maternal actions (crying, for example) they are criticized heavily. However, if women adopt cold and distancing politics they are praised and criticized in equal measure (ironically, in the case of criticism, for not being “feminine” enough). The feminine is, apparently, disavowed in the process of gaining political recognition. And this is where I will likely carry out the bulk of my discussion in the paper on the problematics of recognition. How do we ‘know’ people in a way that does not require an always-already formed knowledge of them; in other words, how do we know, how do we recognize without assuming a closed, or dominant bearing to others?

Teresa Brennan’s examination of the problematics of affective boundaries, of assuming that affects (emotions–though she wouldn’t like the use of this term) are owned, generated and contained by subjects might provide an answer. In the acknowlegement that we can be affected by others, that our boundaries do end and begin in others, that our intentions might not be solely our own, might lie the key to becoming more aware of our reactions to others. In other words, accepting that affects travel is to accept that we are not bounded; it is to stop living in fear of others. It is to surface the body so to speak. Until that day comes, however, McDonnell’s observations suggest another direction for understanding the feminine side to leadership.

McDonnell hits the nail on the head (yet again) with her observation here: “I read once in a Buddhist text, and it’s something I really responded to, that there’s a defensive way and an open way of perceiving life, or meeting life. In an open way, the image is straight back, open front – open heart. In a defensive way, the back is bent and the front is closed. I think the glasses were Laura Roslin’s attempt to keep the front open but protect it.”

I would translate this observation as what I (poaching from the equally brilliant Bettina Stuum) understand to be “bearing.” That is, our intentionality (as both a direction and a disposition) in our relations with others. An active bearing would assume an aggressive, or as McDonnell puts it a defensive, bearing, a kind of subjective lense on life. The person adopting an active “bearing” says “I am here” to life out of fear. While the person adopting a passive and more ethical (open to McDonnell) bearing responds to others; in other words, those adopting a passive bearing receive their agency and identity in an address from others (As Kelly Oliver has convincingly argued in her book Witnessing: Beyond Recognition) in a move which precludes the kind of performances which women leaders frequently have to put on in concessions to masculine ideas of leadership.

So where do we really have to look in order to recuperate the feminine side of leadership? Well, I would suggest it is not a question of looking; rather, it is a question of feeling. It is to give the feminine body what Eve Sedgewick suggestively calls “texture,” to read for the surface of the female body, rather than to inscribe upon it.

McDonnell has mentioned in an interview (I cannot remember the reference or I would note it) that she understands Battlestar as a show “searching for its femininity.” I wholeheartedly agree. I don’t know that Ron Moore’s answer of going back to the roots of survival–place–as a return to the maternal is perhaps the most adept answer to solving the deficit of female representation in politics, but it does suggest that women, as Luce Irigaray might agree, truly are the “elsewhere” when it comes to the political domain. Maybe, then, we just need to speak politics from that place, from our very womanly bodies…

~Kaitlin Blanchard

Women in Power Reveal What it Takes

Carolyn Gibson — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 13:32:16 +0000

A terrific resource from the BBC in their “Education” section – entitled “Women in Power Reveal What It Takes.” It includes profiles of Benazir Bhutto, Winnie Mandela and Chandrika Kumatatunga, the President of Sri Lanka.

Excerpt:

“What does it take for a woman to succeed in world politics? Despite the progress there are still few women leaders. Hear these eleven women talk about how they achieved success. Find out what motivates them and how they overcame the barriers they faced.”

Read it here: Women in Power Reveal What it Takes

In Exile, An Iranian "Lion" Keeps Fighting

onlinewomeninpolitics — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 08:37:36 +0000

The “Lion Woman” of Iran sits outside her 10th floor office atop the main library of the University of Massachusetts-Boston campus, chaffing with frustration as she talks of the turbulence shaking her homeland.

She knows this story all too well: The upwelling of resistance, the retaliatory fist of state power, the fading sense of hope.

“This government is acting like wild animal”, Fatemeh Haghighatjoo says.

After four years of exile, she has lost none of her quiet ferocity or blunt determination. A visiting scholar at UMass, she has led an appeal to the United Nations secretary general to appoint a special envoy to investigate abuses against activists in Iran, and is pushing for the United States to do more as well.

But while she has come to enjoy some of the peaceful pleasures of life here—like curling up with her 6-year old daughter to watch cartoons—she longs to be back in the boiling center of things.

Haghihatjoo was one of the youngest members of the Iranian Parliament when she took on the power structure the underpins the country’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. After a clerical crackdown on reformers, 124 members agreed to resign. And when they considered who among them should be first to speak, all eyes turned to her.

Then as now, determined women like her played a key role in demanding democracy in Iran. And what she said seems remarkably prescient today: “By conducting sham elections, the power-drunk opponents of the popular vote have turned their backs on all the achievements of the revolution. They seek to erase republicanism and freedom from the political face of the country forever”.

Continue reading by clicking here.

Palin 2012

Anne Morriss — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 13:49:25 +0000

I started to write about Sarah Palin as a serious presidential contender — not something people like to think about in this neck of the woods — and then I found a piece from Roger Simon in Politico with better insight into Palin’s candidacy than I was bringing to the table.

Simon’s advice to Palin, which includes “Don’t Believe You Can’t Do It” and “Don’t Worry About Failure,” applies beyond the strange, through-the-looking-glass world of electoral politics, particularly for aspiring leaders who think of themselves as outsiders. The best of his advice was this:

SURROUND YOURSELF WITH PEOPLE SMARTER THAN YOU ARE. That shouldn’t be hard, her opponents will say. OK, let them laugh. They laughed at George W. Bush when he ran for president in 2000 and at Arnold Schwarzenegger when he ran for governor of California in 2003. Both benefited from low expectations and smart staffs.

I am not one of those people who believe that staffs win or lose elections — candidates win or lose elections — but the Democratic presidential race in 2008 certainly demonstrated the difference that staffs can make. Hillary Clinton assembled a staff of loyal people who were largely inexperienced in presidential campaigning. Barack Obama assembled a staff of loyal people who were very experienced in presidential campaigning. It made a difference.

As Simon’s advice suggests, women legitimately identify as outsiders in politics. The number of women serving in higher office in the U.S. doesn’t reflect the female fraction of the population, not by a long shot, and there are more and less surprising reasons for this phenomenon. For anyone interested in the subject, Jennifer Lawless, a political science professor at Brown University who ran for Congress in Rhode Island and lost, wrote a compelling, data-driven book on the subject called It Takes a Candidate: Why Women Don’t Run for Office.

Lawless points out the structural barriers to female candidates, including a system strongly biased towards incumbents, who are usually male. But I found the more useful and challenging parts of her message to be the things that individuals can change instantaneously. One lever that female candidates control is mustering up the audacity to run, which women seem to systematically resist. Another is getting over the distaste for becoming subjects of “attack politics” and “dirty campaigning,” which Lawless herself had to do.

I heard Lawless speak recently. She said she got over the mudslinging relatively quickly, once she realized that being attacked meant being taken seriously. She said a highlight of the campaign, in fact, was the first time her opponent ran an attack ad against her, with thinly veiled critiques of her age, gender and weight. When she saw the spot she hugged her campaign manager with delight, a response that seemed inconceivable at the beginning of the campaign.

By this measure, do not let the widespread fear and loathing of Sarah Palin (and Hillary Clinton) turn you off, ladies. It may be a very good sign for female candidates everywhere. Or as Roger Simon might advise, “Pick More Fights With David Letterman.”

making us look bad

Sunili — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 09:45:35 +0000

I have disliked The [not-so] Hon Julie Bishop for quite some time. Firstly, the wall outside her Subiaco office makes me want to gag every time I drive up Rokeby Rd. Then there’s the whole Liberal Woman oxymoron thing where she, like Gov Sarah Palin, takes the cause of women 50-bajillion steps back every time she steps out in her Linney’s.

As if her policies and incompetence weren’t bad horrible atrocious enough, she goes and does THIS during question time:

OH. MY. EFFING. GOODNESS.

And then —– and then her “justification” for this lameness (which will surely give me nightmares tonight; sorry for posting it, actually)???

“When people are carrying on in question time and getting really personal and vicious, it’s just a little thing that I do,” she said.

“It’s sort of suggesting that the girls should put the claws away.” [News]

It’s “A LITTLE THING” you do for “THE GIRLS”????????????

GREAT WORK, you pretentious brat, now everyone’s just going to say that female politicians can never rise above the petty squabbles they have across the leafy courtyards in their obnoxious private schools!!!!! (The day I vowed never, ever, to enter politics was the day we had a fake election in Year 10 Social Studies. Oh, the humanity.)

There was a comment on the news article going “oh, right, so can guys punch each other in Parliament now”? And seriously, that’s what this takes us to. Redicularity.

I am so embarrassed I share the same two types of chromosomes with this person. SO EFFING ASHAMED.

Can anyone confirm that she’s actually a she? I still have hope. No honest woman would use that much hairspray and fanny about like THAT much of a queen, right??? Please? I’m begging.

Pat Giles is one amazing lady

Sunili — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 07:53:50 +0000

So, desipite my laryingitis, I drove out to Guilford yesterday to attend a lunch put on by Perth Labor Women & EMILY’s List to celebrate the 80th birthday of former-Senator Pat Giles.

Now, I was totally sick, but I’d RSVPed for this months ago, and even though I knew little about Pat Giles before I went, I knew the person organising it, and I had totally pomised myself that I would to go to more of these events. Plus it was a good excuse not to sit around being miserable.

Well, the birthday girl was this little old lady (well, duh, it was her 80th) with bright white hair and the sweetest smile, but on hearing her biography I came to realise that this woman had broken some balls in her time.

After working as a nurse, she did a BA as a mature age student (as much as I complained about them when I was in 1st year, they totally have guts; I came to realise that not all of them are wankers). She then went on to work with the Hospital Employees Industrial Union — which later became part of the Missos, a union I care a lot about through my time as a LMWEP kid — and was one of the first women working in an industrial position in the trade union movement in WA.

Her résumé (here taken from a handout based on notes by Lekkie Hopkins at Edith Cowan Uni) pretty much uses the phrase “first woman to” as dot points:

first woman elected to the WA Trades & Labour Council executive (1975);
member of the first ACTU Women’s Council (1977); later chair (1978);
first woman advocate before State Industrial Commission (on the introduction of maternity leave in to WA awards)

Pat was elected as a Senator for Western Australia in 1981 and chaired the Senete Select Commitee on Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes. She was a Senator for 12 years and during that time she was also a big part of the international women’s movement:

Member, Australian Government Delegation to Tribune, Mexico, International Women’s Year 1975;
Leader, Australian Government Delegation to World Conference for the End of the Decade for Women, Nairobi, July 1985;
Leader, Australian Delegation to Meeting of Commonwealth Ministers for Women’s Affairs, Nairobi, 1985; Harare, Zimbabwe, 1987; Ottawa, Canada, 1990;
Parliamentary Adviser, United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), New York, September-December 1992.

She then served three terms as President of the International Alliance of Women.

Oh, and she also has 5 kids (and now lots of grandkids).

Some little old lady, huh?

Now, we’re definitely talking about a graduate from the Old School of 70s and 80s feminism, but I am personally of the opinion that us young’ns can still learn a shitload from feminist pioneers like Pat Giles. And what’s more, we need to be genuinely grateful for, as Sharryn Jackson described it, the path through the jungle that these women have hacked through ahead of us.

One thing that struck me from the masses of adulation about Pat was an ex-diplomat who spoke of how highly world leaders regarded Pat for her work and her approach — a key approach being, saying anything that might be a little harsh with a smile backed up by genuine kindheartedness. Now that’s a good approach to diplomacy.

It got me thinking back to an article I’d read the night before. It was from US magazine the Atlantic (picked it up from Borders on Friday, at those dumb air freight rates; I’m subscribing this week) and is entitled ‘Should Women Rule?‘

The book review goes through several publications that essentially lead to the conclusion that, because of biological and historical givens, women aren’t very good at leading the world. The reviewer then asks this question:

so what if women are power-wielding-impaired? Is ruling the world the only way to change the world?

After going through one final book about the one ‘mom’ who lead a million others to fight the gun lobby, the conclusion is this:

Today, the Barnes & Noble “Women’s Studies” shelves are thick with books on women’s self-esteem, on women’s bodies, on women and money. But to exert more true power in the world, we need to pay less attention to our feelings, our clitorises, and even our 401(k)s. Why in five decades of modern feminist writing have we never seen any serious consideration of, for instance, the PTA, a hugely powerful, 100-plus-year-old, women-founded and women-dominated organization, whose well-funded and effective lobbying arm can actually help push through legislation? The women’s movement has ignored millions of PTA women—women busy baking brownies and zooming about in their Kohl’s wear, who can’t rule the world but who can change it. My fellow PTA mothers—“change agents” all—we need more books that teach us to build and direct our networks to do the work we value.

That’s fair enough; I am all for change agents (I think my dad pioneered some “change agent” program when he was at CARE?). But I think while international diplomacy may not be for everyone woman, there are skills in which women can be a lot better at than men that can be used for ruling as well as changing.

As shown by Pat Giles — she was a P&C mum before she was a Senator.

Now, I’m done blogging for the day; I’m going to bake a cake so that I can eat it (I need to practice that stuff to prepare myself for when I rule the world).

Dreams for Women- Shoreline Center Edition...

areaume — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 23:22:01 +0000

Last week, I received a lovely surprise in the mail. The Shoreline Center for Eating Disorder Treatment (Satori House) sent us another great package of postcards and a lovely letter! Last year, we received a package of beautiful postcards from them, which were made during one of their Art Therapy programs. The postcards that they sent were beautiful and poignant and one was even chosen for our calendar!

This week, we received another package from the Centre as well as a touching letter telling us how much the project has meant to them. I have to say, reading the letter and reading the postcards that were sent along with it brought tears to my eyes! I want to thank the Centre for using the Dreams for Women project and for sending us their postcards! It means a lot to us. Thank you to all the women who contributed to our project.

I would also like to remind everyone to pick up their Dreams for Women 2009 calendar! Check it out here! Buy one for yourself, buy a bunch for your friends as gifts or buy copies to sell as a fundraiser for your non-profit organization!

Antigone Magazine is facilitating a Feminist Postcard art project! We want to know what your Dreams for Women are.What are your own dreams for yourself, your friends, your sisters, your daughters? Paint, draw, write, sketch or decoupage your dreams on a postcard and send it to the address below:

Antigone Magazine

C/O WILLA UBc

Box 61-6138 SUB Boulevard

Vancouver, BC, Canada

V6T 1Z1

antigonemagazine(at)hotmail.com

With your postcard submission, we ask that you make a donation (if you can!) to Antigone Magazine for anywhere from $1 to $10. You can send your money along with your postcard or donate on our blog: http://www.antigonemagazine.wordpress.com/ .

But don’t worry… if you don’t have the money, just send along the postcard and tell people about this program.

What is Antigone Magazine? We’re a grassroots national magazine that works to encourage young women to get involved in politics in Canada. We work to empower young women to engage politically and civically and to actively take part in leadership roles.We are raising the money in order to help launch the Antigone Foundation, a national foundation that will encourage young women aged 10-30 to get politically and civically engaged. Help support Antigone as we help to make the dreams of young women come true!

When Mc Cain-Palin lose, Sarah's future will still be bright on Fox

4wrdthnkndad — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 17:00:46 +0000

I saw Sarah Palin on SNL. I didn’t think much of the first sketch with Lorne Michaels and Alec

The Elective to Participate

Kaitlin Blanchard — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 09:50:53 +0000

I’m writing this since today is Canada’s federal election, and an American election looms ominously in the background of our own country’s shortlived and rather disappointing election campaign.

I know that many people don’t vote; whether because they are disillusioned, disinterested, or simply disgusted, voting is seen as ‘ineffective’ and pointless. While I share your apathy with our single-member-plurality system, I don’t see voting in the same light. The single member plurality system has the unfortunate consequence of electing governments who usually have not cullled the majority of the popular vote. This isn’t to say, however, that your vote is entirely ineffectual. Consider this:

Your vote is $1.25 toward the party of your choice; that money goes toward supporting ideas and platforms, which you, as a citizen of a democracy, wish to be heard. If the voice of the people the “demos” is not heard by and large, then truly, the plurality of our system are the ones running the show. Furthermore, if for example, you are voting for a party whose share of the popular vote is on the lower end of the scale, every vote they receive goes towards granting them the monies they need to be seen by the media etc… If they receive over a certain percentage of the popular vote, they are automatically accorded a stipend to build their organization. This is a particularly resonant point I think when addressing parties such as the Green Party, who hover around 5% of the national vote.

So much is made of voting strategically. Given the nature of our system, it’s almost impossible not to vote in this manner. However, I don’t think that ultimately this is helpful. It might stopgate a Tory majority, but it isn’t going to help the case of proportional representation. If the smaller parties are given are larger share of the vote they are empowered to promote this system, which is, I think, the only thing which might shift our party-system beyond a two-party deadlock. I’m not going to tell anyone how to vote, but I will ask you to look at the reality of your riding and think about where your vote is going before you throw your vote at the lesser of two evils….I think the most important thing everyone can do is to make the conscious decision to vote and to inform themselves in order to do so. And by inform I mean go and glance at your candidate; are you comfortable with someone of their opinions and strengths speaking for you? Or does the overarching ideology of the party matter more? In this case, take a look at your party’s platform; while I know we’re all busy people, even a cursory glance will give you a clue as to what their government might look like. How quickly do they get to the point? Can they relate to you? How far ahead are they thinking?

On a more personal note, I really, really, really hope that Elizabeth May wins her riding. Not only because I do vote green (and be warned here is my bias), but also because I believe she is such a refreshing breath of fresh air. Having an intelligent, unfettered voice such as hers in the House of Commons would be a fantastic stimulus to real debate. As one of (two?) representatives of her party, she would be little constrained by the kinds of internal mechanisms (party discipline) which tend to restrict an MP’s latitude in speaking on issues which affect his constituency. I genuinely believe that May could do so much to inject civility and energy into a rather depressingly stifled commons…May, as both leader, and an outsider, is so far outside of the socilalization which most MPs encounter as part of the party-machines.

While choosing to vote may be simply that, a ‘choice,’ electing not to participate in the forum where your voice needs to be heard really shouldn’t be the de-facto response. Apathy is not going to change our voter system….

What does Palin have that other women don't?

4wrdthnkndad — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 17:03:27 +0000

The Vice Presidential debate is now history. Since reflecting on it, I must admit that Sarah Palin e

Sarah Palin: Let's Go Shoe Shopping, But Stay Outta My White House

Mademoiselle Attrition — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 06:04:45 +0000

All right ladies, let’s talk politics since politics is finally talking about us. If you watched even a few minutes of the Vice Presidential Debate tonight, you know one thing is true: red patent leather pumps mean business, and they cower to no man. Although the sniveling, ideologically peripatetic excuses we pass off as impartially informed political analysts who fail to call a spade a spade when it reflects poorly on Obama seem to be reluctant to admit so, what happened tonight was a good old-fashioned ass-handing, and both candidates walked away with their hands full: Joe Biden is pathetically balancing the weight of his own derriere, which he benevolently accepted from Sarah Palin, whose hands are now occupied with pulverizing Biden’s balls, which she systematically removed from him; it’s a sad, sad day indeed.

I say it’s a sad day for many reasons. To begin with, the political process has turned into a staged spectacle since the National. This is a problem. More than any other election previous to the current one, the position of vice-president is absolutely vital. After eight successive years of Dick Cheney, the executive branch has more power than it ever has, so we best examine their motivations, their platforms, and their track record: it’s not enough to calculate their relevance solely on how little they make waves—a resounding NO MORE DAN QUAILS! should be a priority. In light of the glaring resume deficiencies which both candidates posses (Obama = Experience, McCain = relativity to anyone under the age of 60), the presidential nominees are relying on their VPs to strengthen their bids for the White House. In his selection of Biden, Obama added valuable experience and a friendlier image to all conservative bigots (conscious and unconscious ones) who cannot fathom letting a Black man loose as Head of State, and McCain was finally able to energize his doddering campaign with some sex appeal (don’t forget those red patent pumps) under girded by a latent hatred for corruption, which everyone can agree on at this point, and a feel good aura of Americana to boot; which is to say: Sarah Palin flat out stole so fresh and so clean clean clear away from Barack Obama.

But we cannot be fooled by superficial impressions, we cannot afford to be bamboozled by cleverly applied MAC cosmetics. As distasteful as it is to admit and discuss, there is a pervasive streak of racial bigotry in this country: it’s evidenced in careless the racial slurs that are thrown around in efforts to be witty, and it’s evidenced in a story told to me by one of my PoliSci professors at San Francisco State University, who is Barack Obama’s campaign manager in San Francisco—Matthew Freeman. While on the campaign trail in the Mid-West with Obama in the infancy of his bid for the White House, Mr. Freeman was pulled aside by an rally participant who said, “I’ll tell you what, sir: I should would like to vote for your candidate here, but I just can’t.” When Mr. Freeman asked him to elaborate he continued: “Well, I think Obama can do this country some real good, and if we put him in the White House, they’re gonna shoot him and he’ll never have a chance to do that good.” What this means is his VP must be ready to assume office at any moment, because he may have to. On the other side of the fence, it’s equally distasteful to discuss age as a weakness because with age comes wisdom, and we’ve seen where a lack of that has gotten us lately. But it is a factor for John McCain, because his body—the body that propels his mind—has endured some horrific assaults, torture and cancer. And he ain’t gettin’ any younger, folks. In fact, he’s getting older. Much older. Which means….he could die of a freaking heart attack due to the overwhelming excitement of being elected and Sarah Palin would be the one to usher Bush out of the Oval Office: no more time to get a feel for Washington at the executive level, no more time to dodge questions that don’t appeal to her palate.

Let’s be honest here, whoever is elected President is inheriting a steaming pile of horeshit, and due to these circumstances their first four years will focus on simply stopping the bleeding, so neither one of them will be regarded very in the annals of history unless they’re able to pull a second term; this means it’s a crap shoot, and I think they’re equally qualified to fuck things up because they’re both politicians and, despite what they’d like you to believe, they’re beholden to certain procedures and certain people: nobody is a Maverick on Capitol Hill. So the question becomes: who will fuck it up less?

I’ve always been of the opinion that you can tell a lot about a man by the kind of woman he marries (and vice versa). I don’t feel I need to discuss how our Presidential nominees wives reflect on them, because it’s a no brainer: McCain’s trophy wife versus Obama’s political partner? Please—open and shut case. I’m more interested in the Obama-Biden and McCain-Palin marriages, and wouldn’t you know it…their political wives mirror their traditional ones. Biden isn’t flashy, but he’s the pragmatic choice who is dressed well and offers the listening public an off-the-cuff quote that keeps them on their toes, much like Michelle. Palin is all looks and was chosen not so much for the cache of her politics, but rather as arm candy for a man who appears to mistake a sharp tongue for substance, and apparently didn’t realize women weren’t so stupid as to side with gender at the expense of their morals and civic beliefs, because (and John McCain I’m talking directly to you with this one) if it walks like a pig, and talks like a pig, then it’s a pig—no lipstick required. If he really thinks that female Obama and Clinton supporters will jump ship for a woman who is a staunch defender of an unborn life at the expense of the life it devastates, he’s mistaken. I’m sure you’re aware she DOES NOT support a woman’s right to an abortion if her father rapes her and she find yourself preggers, right ladies? If he thinks those same supporters will switch sides for a woman who attempted to fire the head librarian in Alaska after she refused to remove books Palin deemed unacceptable from State shelves, he’s mistaken. He’s mistaken because he has missed the point entirely: Barack Obama isn’t the harbinger of change merely because he is Black or young, and women didn’t support Hillary merely due to some lingering Suffragette alliance—it was and is the things that they stand for: equal rights for every man or woman, regardless of sexual orientation; a woman’s right to decide whether or not she wants to bring life into this topsy-turvy, over populated world; and the promulgation of a rational international presence, not one founded on Cold War rhetoric and misplaced appropriations of diplomatic energy and military power. This ain’t about biology, you assholes: our menstrual cycles didn’t nationally synch up the minute Palin appeared on McCain’s ticket and sway our votes. Sorry guys.

And so this is a sad day, because despite the massive strides we’ve taken since we earned the right to vote, men still think we’re emotional, and will vote based on gender irrationality. It’s a sad day because, in many ways, I was proud of Governor Palin tonight, because she not only held her own against a white male in a field dominated by white men, but overcame an experiential deficit of about 30 years in comparison with that white man, and all without directly answering a single question! You know what that means, right? She beat a man at his own game, and looked better doing it. Damn…if only she wasn’t diametrically opposed to everything I stood for, we could go shoe shopping together.

What does Sarah Palin have that other women don't?

4wrdthnkndad — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 21:15:16 +0000

As I was reading the latest batch of letters from angry New York TImes readers about Sarah Palin, I

Saying a Belated Goodbye to Mirlande Demers

mirahall — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 20:39:16 +0000

Mirlande Demers

It came to my attention today that a tremendous activist, and young woman, unexpectedly died this summer. Mirlande Demers passed away in July this year while traveling in Indonesia of undetermined causes.

Mirlande was a member of the official delegation at the 52nd UNCSW, and was a critical force in ensuring that suggestions from the unofficial delegates were heard. She was deeply involved in activism for women’s rights, for the rights of those living with disability, and she continually and effectively worked against discrimination in all forms.

At 26, she had accomplished many things, including having volunteered in Senegal, Haiti, and El Salvador to advance the rights of women. She had recently established an NGO called Quebec Coalition Against Discrimination.

While with her in New York, one of the things that I remember beyond her ability to be heard, and to manage negotiating and political relationships with ease, was walking for over 25 blocks trying to find a restaurant that was wheelchair accessible for her.

We had agreed that she would stay at the hotel and that we would phone her once we found an appropriate place. While walking endlessly and inspecting each restaurant over a period of hours, my feet ached, and I was increasingly horrified at the experience. I have always understood in a very abstract way that the lives of those with physical disability are difficult, however the context of that experience helped me to realize how things that seem very simple pose great difficulty for those confined to wheelchairs.

I remember that about once an hour she would phone and she would offer to just meet us after supper. I knew that she was trying not to be a burden, and I also remember how much more awful I felt when after our long search, that the only place that we could find that could accommodate her chair was a McDonalds.

In the end she declined, and we went on to eat at a restaurant with fabulous food, and I thought of her, back at the hotel.

At any rate, this isn’t a post about pitying her, more so, that singular experience has made me appreciate that the other glamorous international volunteering, as well as the host of other things that she had managed to accomplish during her very short lifetime are that much more extraordinary to me, knowing how much difficulty she faced in simply being able to eat at a decent restaurant.

so in closing, I’m saying good-bye to this amazing young woman. She is inspirational, and she was strong, and definitely an example to aspire to.

-Mira Hall

My Dream For Women is the end of the feminization of poverty

mirahall — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 05:00:27 +0000

Although I’d settle for the end of poverty all together. It has long been statistically shown that women are at a higher risk of being in poverty throughout their lives, and that the depth of their poverty is deeper than is experienced by men in our cherished Canadian society. While Parliament seems to be all about Poverty Reduction, Poverty Eradication, Poverty Senate Committee Studies, I just want them to get a move on, and take care of it like they said they would so many years ago.

When the election was called, I know that the there had been a Senate Report completed and submitted on rural poverty, and Tony Martin of the NDP Party was very near the start of a HUMA Committee hearing on poverty reduction strategies. Do we really need the multiple reports and studies? Sure they’re nice, but NGOs have already studied the issue, University Women’s Studies and Sociology Classes are already teaching aspects of the issues, and surprisingly enough, *way back* in the day when Trudeau was kissing babies, a very interesting solution to poverty was already discussed, discovered and implemented in a pilot program in Northern Manitoba.

This solution is the implementation of a basic income. The Northern Manitoba pilot project was dubbed “Mincome” and started in 1974 and was cut short prematurely by a change in government in 1979. The concept of Basic Income has been supported by a wide variety of economists including Milton Freidman, John Kenneth Galbraith, and James Tobin. In 1968 around 1200 economist signed a document calling for what they called a demo-grant, basic income by another name.

So, what is basic income?

Where do Feminists stand?

Why is it good for women?

Well, to start, basic income is essentially an income that is provided to people on the basis of their humanity, rather than as a result of attachment to the labour market or the expectation that they are required to engage in any activity, or fulfill “criteria” in order to be eligible. Ideally this income is enough to cover those things that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says that we are entitled to on the basis of our status as human beings. It should cover, food, shelter, clothing… that sort of thing… the basics.

Recently, I attended a feminist debate in Dublin, Ireland on the subject of the impact of a basic income on women as caregivers. So half the participants had submitted papers and positions against the implementation of a basic income on the basis of the impact it would have on women as caregivers, and the other half presented the opposite. (The papers are available on Ireland’s CORI Justice website http://www.cori.ie/Justice/Basic_Income/62-Basic_Income/541-bien-world-congress-on-basic-income-)

The main theme among Feminists against Basic Income, was the idea that if women were to receive enough money to support themselves without attachment to the labour market, that the progress of the women’s movement concerning women in the workforce would be lost. That women, if they were provided an amount of choice may choose (as a result of present socialization and sexist ideals) to remain as caregivers rather than continue their foray into the corporate world. And that as women did this then any gains made in the equal wage movement, or the ability to access non traditional employment opportunities would be lost.

The feminists that debated for the implementation of basic income argued that because women are at a greater overall risk for being in poverty, and that having access to enough income to support basic needs, that women would actually be able to engage in paid employment to a greater extent (as a result of being able to afford to hire substitute care workers) and also being able to be choosier about the work that they accept.

And finally, from my perspective, however cynical as it may be, current statistics indicate that there are at least 1 million people living in poverty in Canada, right now. The majority of those identified people in poverty are women and their children. Other people who make up Canada’s poor are people with disability, the elderly, Aboriginal and Inuit, new immigrants and visual minorities.

Women take long absences from paid employment because of caregiving responsibilities, and in contrast with those feminists that frown upon women who “choose to engage” in such activity, I would argue, as a poor single mom of two, that it isn’t much of a choice. Whether it’s the school calling me to pick up my sick kid, or outbreaks of lice, I have to stay home.

Women are the ones who make up the ranks of precarious employment, and it is women who are primarily accessing food banks to feed themselves and their children. A recent study of Northern Women and homelessness ended up using the title “Just Blink and It Can Happen” after surveying hundreds of women across the Yukon, Northwest and Nunavut Territories.

It doesn’t seem to me that Canada’s working poor, welfare recipients, and homelessness become so as a result of personal moral failing. Rather, I believe that in this time, where Canada’s economy continues to do very well and its population is falling by greater numbers into the poverty trap, that it is a great and disturbing moral failing of our political leadership.

-Mira Hall

Because Women Leaders Are 'Scary'... and also unqualified

areaume — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 22:27:32 +0000

Here’s a link to a great study out of Harvard on women in power and how men in particular find women in power scary and well… odd: “Powerful Women: Does Exposure Reduce Bias”. While women continue to account for only 17% of parliamentarians around the world and an even smaller percentage of heads of state, the study shows that men in particular are prejudiced against female leaders. Says Mental_Floss magazine:

At least those in certain villages in India, where the 73rd Amendment mandates that at least 1/3 of government positions be filled by women. This mandate allowed the researchers to study the attitude toward female leaders and how exposure to female leadership changed those attitudes.

They found that the voters in a village with its first female leader give evaluations of the woman’s performance that are lower than those of her men counterparts (even when they outperform the men). However, that “distaste” dissipates over time – when a village is exposed a second time to a female leader, the woman’s evaluations are on par with those of her male counterparts. It appears, per the research, that exposure to a female leader reduces prejudice by 50 to 100% (depending on the village).

No Woman 'May' Participate

Kaitlin Blanchard — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 19:13:50 +0000

Hello Dear Readers,

Welcome back to regular blogging. I will do my best to be consistent about this…

But, to the business at hand. I was seeing red yesterday after Elizabeth May was excluded from the official debates. Not only did I find the tactics used by the parties to exclude her as petty and completely undemocratic, but I also found their willingness to cooperate on such a matter despicable. If only they could compromise this well when the house was in session; perhaps then we might have a government rather than an election campaign. I am also heartbroken by May’s exclusion, because, once again, there will be no woman’s voice on the national stage. Regardless of May’s so-called liberal blood, excluding a party whose voice represents part of the Canadian people (4.5% at last count), and that receives funding through the mechanisms of our voting system–$1.25 per vote–is completely unjustified. In fact, coupled with Harper’s re-invigoration of non-fixed election dates, it only reinforces, to my mind, the need for a more transparent PMO’s office. Aside from the fact that fixed election dates work against our system of responsible government, they apparently do very little to enforce cooperation between parties.

Returning to Ms. May’s dilemma, I can’t help but wonder how May and the Greens could challenge this ‘act’. Given the consortium of networks who excluded her (officially, that is, Jack Layton’s endorsement of her pseudo-liberal leanings is still unclear) are not a government agency, this makes May’s recourse to legal action more difficult. And, at a time like this, the party does not need to be held up in the marginalia of the law. While this is certainly a violation of the charter’s provision for “freedom of speech”, I wonder what provoking a legal battle might do. Would it then make our elections even nastier than before?

But I return to the exclusion of women’s voices from the national stage. When I interviewed May two years ago for Antigone’s second issue, I was struck by her eloquence and conviction, something the current campaign wars should take a cue from. In my opinion, politics needs to smarten up; dumbing down election strategies leads to back-door tactics, like May’s exclusion, which then become the norm rather than the exception. Parties need to set a standard of intelligent, respectful debate; small parties have a role disproportionate to their size because of their marginal status. As a presence outside the fray, they can act as ‘truth’ tellers whose voices are unencumbered by the socialization affected by party discipline. Shutting ms. May out is not only a blow to women’s political advocacy, but also a statement about the ineffectiveness of a political climate which has become more and more like a two party system…

Playground campaign tactics (read the puffin ad) are completely unacceptable. So is not saying anything. I for one want to see May’s voice heard.

May’s statement on the matter:

“This is anti-democratic, closed-door, backroom decision-making by four national party leaders who are all men and five television executives — who are all men — to keep out the one woman leader of a federal party,” Ms. May told reporters on Parliament Hill, where she responded Monday to the announcement that she will not be invited to the debates.

“And I don’t think many Canadians will think that was fair.”

I certainly don’t, do you?

"Fantasy" Election

tigerelly — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 03:53:27 +0000

An interesting discussion came up the other day: Will Sarah Palin attract women voters who would have voted for Hilary Clinton? So, this question posed an interesting scheme of things. What if Palin and Clinton were running against each other for the vice presidency? I’m sure I’m not the first person to pose this, but, I would love to see the outcome of this “fantasy” election AFTER Sarah Palin’s introduction to the nation. I’m sure many of you are saying that Hilary would win by a land slide because just a couple of weeks ago we had no idea who the heck Palin was. But, judging from the vast amount of popularity that she won over after her acceptance speech, it could be an interesting race. Interstingly enough, the Republican Palin seems to appeal to the “everyday, regular” and “hockey mom” women, while Democratic Clinton seems to be the high class, “Washington elite” that not too many “regular” women voters can appeal too. Granted, one’s voting decision should not be based on the candidate’s gender, but on the individual’s ability to run a nation. But, whether we like it or not the fact that we have women running for president or vice president will have an imapct on how we vote. And if Palin and Clinton were facing each other in November, I for one would definitely be waiting to see who comes out on top. So, to answer the initial discussion question, like it or not, there will be some Clinton women voters filling out the ballot for Palin, just because she is a woman.

Image by AP

"Palin Power!"

tigerelly — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 06:07:28 +0000

I am not Republican. But, Gov. Sarah Palin’s speech was great. Amidst all the controversy surrounding her up to this point, she was confident, graceful, and delivered a vibrant speech that erased all doubts of her ability to address on a national level. Now, she didn’t address many of her views of several subjects, but given the situation that she gave this speech (i.e. pregnant daughter, Gustav, and the media), I thought that she got her point across. She emphasized the small community/family and John Mccain’s military accomplishments pretty well. She also stressed the party’s stand regarding the Iraq war, and maintains that she is proud to deploy a son and a nephew to fight in the war. She received applauses after almost every sentence that came out of her mouth. She also garnered a lot pf points by stating that she and her family represents everyone’s “ups and downs”, and that many wrote her off as a nominee because she is not part of the Washington elite.

Another impressive aspect of her speech was her subtle, yet fierce attack on Barack Obama. She was not dirty about it at all, but like I said before she got her point across. I thought it was great when her family came on stage and her (pregnant)daughter’s boyfriend was part of it. Strong move. I think that she gave and will continue to give the Republicans a much needed spark. Finally, I am going to squeeze in a fave quote from her speech, “The difference between hockey moms and a pit bull is lipstick”. Good one!

Image by AP

Bits and Bites Wednesday September 6th,2008

Laila — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 16:04:30 +0000

Wow, this Wednesday completely snuck up on me, because of the long weekend, and I nearly forgot all about Bits and Bites. So cool, though, because its only 2 days now until the next weekend, which I hear is going to be sunny and gorgeous.

First up, the comments and emails keep rolling in about Dave Gerry and Simi Sara, as families and others return from vacations and discover the news that they were fired. Will it ever end? I still see numerous clicks on the link to City TV’s contact page, which can only be a good thing, and I also see individuals at CityTV, and Rogers are reading the blog several times daily, so your views are well known. Will we ever see them again? I hope so. Boycott the channel and their advertisers, as declining advertising revenues are the only things corporate heads understand.

Now, lets talk about all this Palin-McCain nonsense. Three things bother me here. First ,while I agree that the children of political candidates should remain untouched by scrutiny,( in most cases), the family announcement certainly detracted from the news of Palins ethics investigation, which really puts the timing of it in a dubious light. Two: Did McCain pick her solely because she’s a woman and he thinks she will attract ex-Hillary supporters? I’m laying my cash on that bet because she hardly seems suited to become president should anything happen to McCain, which is really a big reason why the VP is there. Three: would any of this talk be going on if SHE were a HE ? I think not. I’ve been reading articles in even the most “respectable” publications where her beauty is mentioned, her mothering skills questioned, her hobbies targeted and her fitness regime lauded. Hello, what year are we living in? Are Obama’s fathering skills being questioned? Is anyone worried about whether John McCain can make dinner on time? Good grief, and people wonder why women shy away from politics? Honestly, its because unless you are an older, butchy woman who has bigger balls than a man, ZERO sex appeal, and can handle the scrutiny, the media and the public will pick you apart bit by bit. All the fuss aside, the most revealing news about this pick seems to be McCains questionable judgement.

Talking about Questionable Judgment, why are so many teachers moaning and complaining about the new requirement that kids from kindergarten to grade 12 must have 30 minutes of mandatory P.E. everyday? BCTF president Irene Lanzinger is already complaining that it may take time away from other subjects and it will be difficult to police. What’s going on in schools nowadays? I just mentioned this in Mondays blog post! I’m 37, and grew up in Prince George. We had mandatory PE everyday up until grade 11, at which point it became an elective. We also never had homework sent home in elementary school, unless you were a goof and didn’t finish something in class -todays young kids seem to have assigned homework now because teachers claim there isn’t enough time in the day to get it all done. The question is WHY ??? Kids are not getting enough physical activity, that’s clear, and sadly we cant count on parents to make appropriate decisions with respect to nutrition and exercise, a fact backed up by the shocking number of obese children. Getting physical will help kids learn, and teach them how to take care of themselves. If teachers no longer think that is part of their job, that needs to be addressed.

And in breaking news, ex- RCMP Commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli , says ” I’ve reconsidered, and I dont think the RCMP should be using tasers.” Great Giuliano,(cough, media whore, cough), thanks for getting back to us on that, I know I for one, was waiting breathlessly for your opinion. Why is this guy still putting in his two cents? He has less credibility than than a crackhead on trial, yet unfortunately it seems that his resignation didn’t mean we wouldn’t be hearing from him again. Spare me, please.

And last, but not least, to leave you with a tickle from that fantastic website www.topfive.com, here’s the…..

The Top 13 Signs You’re Not All That Green

You burn tires to create shade for the backyard.

Two words: styrofoam coffin.

The hot Orion slave girl who makes out with Captain Kirk is the only thing that comes to mind when you hear “green piece.”

You one-upped your neighbor’s Ferrari by buying an RV with a built-in parking garage.

Your new hybrid runs on whale oil.

Your idea for biodegradable condoms seemed like a winner — nine months ago.

Your lightbulbs are gasoline-powered.

Instead of a nice and sensible five items, your humor lists often contain a bandwidth-clogging 17 items.

You’re one Siberian tiger coat away from being able to wear the entire animal kingdom.

The shiny new Prius in your driveway looks like a toy just delivered by the 15-foot-high motorized Santa in the fully lighted sleigh in your front yard with larger-than-life glowing reindeer with laser-light-nosed Rudolph in the lead. And this year you proudly added the animatronic elf choir with surround-sound to your display.

Your driveway has a bigger oil slick than Jerry Lewis’s pillow.

While you can blend in with Shrek, The Incredible Hulk, and Kermit the Frog, you still don’t match the color of David Hasselhoff’s face after a long weekend. and the Number 1 Sign You’re Not All That Green…

Ed Begley, Jr. falls to his death in your Paul Bunyon-esque carbon footprint

*****Join me in supporting BC’s disabled kids by making a donation to help me raise the minimum $1500.00 pledge for the Easter Seals Drop Zone Jump event on September 16th. All money raised in BC ,stays in BC. More information and a link to donate on the page at the top of the blog…. Thanks!

So while we're all talking acceptance speeches and Palin and all that...

Ned Raggett — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 16:32:07 +0000

…a little reminder that popped up earlier this week about the wider picture, courtesy of NPR editorial director Dick Meyer via an opinion piece over at the LA Times:

As the nation’s attention reluctantly turns to the political parties’ conventions, with their scripted suspense and stage-managed sentiment, it is important to keep in mind that these are phony representations of American political life. But the slick video profiles, the teary appearance of a beloved party elder — these are not what is most phony about the conventions.

This gathering of America’s civic tribes — and the reporters who love them — in separate cities for days of synchronized cheering and jeering is the embodiment of a great American myth: that the nation is divided into “two Americas,” polarized between “red” and “blue” camps that have fundamentally different values and moral outlooks. Each of the nominees will tell our allegedly divided country that he, and he alone, can manage to unite America for the next four years.

The idea that there is vast war over the moral and spiritual compass of the nation is a dramatic narrative, and it has dominated popular political analysis for nearly two decades. It makes for potent, inflammatory political commercials. It just doesn’t have the added virtue of being true.

This argument is not a new one, and perhaps the best aspect of Meyer’s piece is its presentation of names and sources to rely on for further study, ranging from James Davison Hunter, who popularized the ‘culture war’ term in the early nineties, through Morris Fiorina, whose book Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America addresses and challenges that very concept (and has gone through updated editions — I should know, having ordered them for classes for Reserves!). Meyer sums it and the work of Arthur Brooks up with a simple deftness:

In fact, it’s because we agree on so much that our elections are so close. Fiorina’s “sorting” theory of voter behavior explains it with a certain simple elegance: Voters dislike both parties equally….Extremists, however rare, are becoming more common and, importantly, more rabid….Extreme liberals and extreme conservatives are now essentially dead to one another, as Tony Soprano might have put it….Increasingly, they are also the people who host television and radio talk shows, who publish blogs and who make civic noise.

This all fits in line with my belief that the problem with much political discussion and debate in the era of the Net in particular, but paralleled by the rise or reincarnation of a variety of media outlets seen to be ‘for’ a certain kind of voter (in some cases openly, in others in crypto-fashion), is this kind of ultrademonization, usually predicated on the belief that the ‘other side’ all thinks alike and are zombies that will follow the absolute worst impulses which can be imagined, and don’t really represent ‘the people’ in any event. This of course prompts those on the ‘other side’ to illustrate the differences and debates and details while in turn saying the first side are in fact the ones thinking alike etc. etc. Lather, rinse, repeat.

This isn’t meant to be a scientific pronouncement, merely an observation based on some years now of self-conscious image making and branding on the part of those larger groups and affiliations dedicated to political points of view. It still seems to hold true, though, and will continue to do so for some time to come. Meanwhile, the largest voting group in America remains the nonvoters — consider these numbers from the 2004 elections, where 4 out of 10 eligible voters did not vote at all in what was supposed to be a passionate national referendum on Bush’s presidency — and while the big premise of this election is that things are noticeably changed with the excitement Obama has generated in particular, let’s wait and see how it all plays out in the end. Emotionally I’m down with that claim; hardheadedly, I wonder a bit.

And I wonder because of something I’ve talked about in the past — what I see as the essential conservatism — not in a political sense, more in a vested-interest/not-upsetting-the-apple-cart sense — of the American populace. Meyer, perhaps less loadedly and more appropriately, uses the description “pragmatic, moderate and independent,” which also applies to a large extent, but not wholly so. This description would appear to limit itself to the voting populace, rather than the non-voting bloc I’ve indicated, whose reasons for nonparticipation vary but at base rely on the fact that America is an incredibly stable society and has been for a long, long time. Stable does not mean fair, equal to all, or perfect, I should underline. It’s something else altogether. But if a large enough group of the populace has the belief and continues to maintain it that can be summed up as ‘things are still ticking along so I’m going to concentrate on my own affairs because that’s all I can do,’ then that serves as a check for all the dreams and goals and stances on issues, from whatever side.

That may sound depressing or defeatist. It isn’t meant to be, rather it’s meant to be a recognition of things, about how despite the big issues and life-changing events, many things don’t change, or won’t change immediately. Almost seven years after 9/11 and its supposed changing of everything, it’s fascinating to see what hasn’t changed now, or how quickly certain beliefs reasserted themselves. I remember at the time — maybe even on the day itself, as some way of coldly distracting myself from the horror — telling others how the event would be used by all sides to regrind already finely-honed axes, and we’ve seen that happen pretty readily. It’s just one example of many.

But to end on a note that hopefully puts all these thoughts into some perspective — and to talk more about the subject line of this post! — something has struck me over these last couple of days, in the stories of people like Bertha Means from Texas, who remembered and fought against segregation and bigotry as openly practiced in her community, seeing in Obama’s speech the culmination of something amazing, an once-unexpected and now seemingly logical triumph. I could never claim that sense of seeing such change as it directly affected me, seeing a certain promise finally come true and possibly even truer in the future. Mine is the reflective dispassionate understated conviction of relative privilege in this society, tempered further by my age — her conviction is the ground-floor-up version, with barriers negotiated and fought against every step of the way, moving to greater and greater heights, to claim the American promise in full at last after decades of seeing that promise continue to develop due to her efforts. And she is far from alone.

Meanwhile, say what you want about Palin — personally I’m all fine with her trashing the oil-compromised feebs that ran her state beforehand, though given nearly everything else about her I can’t say I’d ever vote for her or the broken, self-loathing party she now must represent nationally, not that I was in any rush to do so to start with — the fact remains that in this country one hundred years ago, outside of a few states and territories she wouldn’t've been able to vote at all, while fifty years ago the idea that she might have been a vice-presidential candidate simply a pipe dream. Things have changed and the American experiment continues to unfold, and if they’re twenty-four years behind the times in nominating a woman near the top of the ticket — and allowing for the fact that Palin got her chance via choice and persuasion rather than slugging it out in the primaries, a chance and route Hillary Clinton could have feasibly achieved — then even so, someone, somewhere in the GOP recognized it was the 21st century. If they’re punting, they’re doing so figuring that their base will still cheer them on.

Conveniently enough, over on ILE John D. posted something a little bit ago that sums things up very handily on this front:

…it’s meaningful whether she’s a terrible candidate or not. Am I going to vote for the ticket because there’s a woman on it? No, of course not, she’s insane and McCain is awful. Does it have some historical weight for the right-leaning party – the one with a huge evangelical base, many sub-pockets of which genuinely believe that this country would be better off if women didn’t work at all – to put a woman in the #2 position? Of course it does. They haven’t done that before. It’s indicative of general progress toward eventually not being a total embarrassment among democracies in having only been led by men.

And so a convention to see through and then two months to go. It’ll be a hell of a ride, at the least.

W o r d P r e s s .c o m P o l i t i c a l B l o g g e r A l l i a n c e

Softer side of Obama

tigerelly — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 06:31:08 +0000

Here is a run down of Michelle Obama’s DNC speech. The article pretty much sums it up: the speech was pretty good. She touched on an important aspect of the candidate/husband–he is human–just like the rest of us. A family man who feels that he make this country that much better for everyone else’s family. A farfetched, yet simple goal that offers hope to many American families who have waited a long time for this kind of change.

Image by AP

Why Not Me for VP?

Allison Fine — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 21:04:40 +0000

So, I’m off to Denver for the Democratic National Convention. It’s very exciting, lots a